Talk:The Heritage Foundation/Archive 2

POV tag added
Based on reading the other comments here, and after reading the article, I went ahead and added a POV tag. The article uses subjective superlatives and doesn't address criticism of the foundation or its activities. Minerva9 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that this article be used as a source, but there are sources listed in its citations that might be useful if anyone wants to take a shot at making the article more balanced... Minerva9 (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This wikipedia entry sources fox news for the ACA, among other things. It is, as a source, unreliable. It utilizes a dictionary source as an advertising agency. This has brought wikipedia to a previously unknown low. We may all have to question wikipedia as an authority for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:93D2:52D0:3850:2F00:FBE:60A5 (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Overstated claims in "Trump administration" section of article
The following of my edits were reverted by User:Snooganssnoogans without comment.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=856880962&oldid=856880496 Description: The recommendations weren’t for the Trump administration. The recommendations were for a “potentially forthcoming Republican administration”, as the lead sentence for this paragraph states
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=856881407&oldid=856880962 Description: Neither cited article goes so far as to say that the foundation “signaled” to Donald Trump that they would be *supportive* of him.

My edits were valid and were reverted without comment. Hence, I have re-applied my edits.

In lieu of an edit war, I encourage User:Snooganssnoogans to discuss the issue here.

I'm sure we can come to a consensus or compromise about the verbiage of the claims.

208.115.85.240 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your changes were not an improvement. The source makes clear that the Heritage Foundation, unlike other think tanks, signaled support for Trump early on, and thus came to have a disproprtionate influence on the Trump administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

They undid all of my edits also which were heavily sourced. 90% from heritage foundation and wikipedia archives. Climate denial, Saudi crown prince (MBS) in their advisors group on middle the east, info about ACA. This is not a information source, this is an advertisement. How much did they pay for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:93D2:52D0:3850:2F00:FBE:60A5 (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You undid both of my edits but only described one in your response here. Please also address my edit with the description: The recommendations weren’t for the Trump administration. The recommendations were for a “potentially forthcoming Republican administration”, as the lead sentence for this paragraph states.
 * I believe you are incorrect that my edits are not an improvement. Please describe how I am incorrect in edits, with explicit excerpts of the source material that demonstrate how my edits were not an improvement.  It is up to the person making a statement of fact - such as these statements in text of the Wikipedia article - to demonstrate that the article correctly reflects the sources.  Please justify your claim that the Heritage Foundation "signaled support for Trump early on", and state your objection to my edit with the edit description above.
 * If you don't work with me here to come to a compromise or consensus, I'll be forced to add a "not in source" tag to both sources to get more visibility on the issue. Alternately, I will investigate mediation.
 * 208.115.85.240 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to seek mediation. Also, it's a bit weird how an account with a single edit to his/her name prior to today knows about tags and mediation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * > Also, it's a bit weird how an account with a single edit to his/her name prior to today knows about tags and mediation.
 * Rather than ad hominem insinuations, I encourage you to focus on the edits I've made and your refusal to either a. show evidence that they're non-constructive or b. show evidence that the article accurately captures the cited works.
 * If you have specific concerns related to the number of edits my current IP address has made vs. my apparent knowledge of Wikipedia, then I'm sure there's somewhere you can air that concern.
 * I'm disappointed that you've refused to work with me.
 * I'll seek mediation.
 * 69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Apparently mediation isn't what's appropriate here:
 * Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing "for the sake of disagreeing" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions. Mediation
 * I've described the thinking behind my edits. You have not provided anything defending your reverts except saying, 'they're wrong'.
 * As you've been unwilling to work with me in any way, I'll take it to Administrators' noticeboard.
 * 69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Administrators' noticeboard didn't sound like the right place for this. Instead I've posted to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard:
 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
 * That direct link to the proper section doesn't work (at least in Firefox,) but it at least points to the right page.
 * 69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the CNN source does say that Heritage "... would have advised any candidate who'd listen, even Hillary Clinton if she'd been interested." However it also emphasizes the Foundation's close ties with the Trump administration specifically. Sure, it's possible that they could have advised any "forthcoming Republican administration", but the fact is that Trump is the one who filled this role.
 * This involvement is significant regardless of whether it has more to do with the Administration's choice or the Foundation's willingness to cooperate. –dlthewave ☎ 00:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Which of my edits do you think are unconstructive, reduce the quality of the article, or don't accurately describe the sources? Rather than talking in general terms, I think we should focus specifically on my edits and my choice of words vs. the sources.  I think focusing specifically on the edits and the reverts is the best way to achieve consensus.
 * For example, this is edit 2 of 2. What statements in the citations back up the original phrasing?
 * Before: According to individuals involved in crafting the database, hundreds of people that the foundation recommended for positions in the Trump administration ended up getting them.
 * After: According to individuals involved in crafting the database, hundreds of people that the foundation recommended for those positions ended up getting them in the Trump administration.
 * Thanks.
 * Edit: "the fact is that Trump is the one who filled this role." That's true.  The article overstates the amount of signalling of support of, and coordination with, the Trump campaign, versus what the sources say.  That's what I'm trying to fix.
 * 2601:142:100:DDF5:40D6:836E:D33A:9E37 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Which of my edits..." This is your first edit....using this account, and that's confusing. Stick to one account by registering. That way you'll start building some cred here. Right now you're IP hopping, and that's not good. You don't have a collected contribution history in one place, so no cred. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the confusion. I think my issues are straightforward enough and explicit enough that it should not require any particular level of credibility to address.  I do concede that my changing IP address is confusing.
 * Since no one has provided any text from the sources to support the claims in the article, I will tag with Template:Request quotation and take this to the Administrators' noticeboard if my edit is reverted and no one will back up the claims in the article.
 * Thanks. 69.143.175.242 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I know this is old, but I have removed the quotation needed tag from that section. Adding the quotes from the article would add very little value given how close they are to the actual text and how much additional space it would add. I'm happy to add the supporting quotes if someone is interested. Squatch347 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversy?
Shouldn't this article, at least, have a 'Controversy' section? This fundation has been involved on illegal, criminal and terrorist activities

(just an example of this acknowledged in the article): The Foundation worked closely with leading anti-communist movements, including the terrorist group Contras in Nicaragua[15] and Jonas Savimbi's Unita movement in Angola to bring military, economic and political pressure to promote coups in these countries.[16]

I'm not familiar with this Fundation, I'm just reading (in awe) how information as the one above is just stated with no data about criminal prosecution on their members (has been any?)

The main concern is that this Fundation is used as a source on wikipedia. Thanks. Agustin6 (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. No. This article should not have a Controversy section. See WP:Criticism. – Lionel(talk) 07:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you wanted more information on their involvement, you could add a section called something like "Support of anti-Communists." It could explain what they did, why they did it, and why it was controversial.  Calling it something like "Controversy over support of anti-Communists" is biased.  TFD (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Apparently I did not expressed myself clear, I'm not talking about the anti-communist ideology, I'm talking of what this article says they worked with terrorist group Contras and Jonas Savimbi's Unita movement in Angola to bring military, economic and political pressure to promote coups in these countries, which are both criminal activities

I couldn't do any section myself cause, while I do know history of Contras and Reagan policies, I didn't knew about the existence of this Fundation until I read this article, nor I know if any of this information is real.Agustin6 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a resume of what could be added under the title Controversies; it may have mistakes and I'm having some problems with adding the linking to the sources, so I leave it here to be checked:

The Foundation promoted the Reagan Doctrine in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua and other nations of the world Erica Payne,  fYtWuOJ6wtEAoL-xSUJt_kLFX1k & hl = en & sa = X & ei = W-W6U-zVIsSOyATdzYGADg & ved = 0CDIQ6AEwAg # v = snippet & q = heritage & f = false The Practical Progressive: How to Build a 21st Century Political Movement,  Public Affairs, 2008. ; provided intellectual and political strategy advice, and military and financial support through the US government Congress Research Service, Draft Report (1987) 'Public Diplomacy' 'Project Democracy' and Contra Aid '". Goodtimesweb.org, Sensitive Diplomatic Relations, 1981-1988, pp. 58-59. Consortium for independent journalism  to the main movements anti-communist of the 80s including the group terrorist Cons in Nicaragua https: / /www.heritage.org/americas/report/contras-score-military-gains-inside-nicaragua , and Jonas Savimbi of the movement UNITA in Angola, to promote coups d'etat in countries with communist, socialist and allied governments.  Michael Johns, The Lessons of Afghanistan : Bipartisan Support for Freedom Fighters Pays Off,  Policy Review , Heritage Foundation publication, March 1987, p. 32. 

Analysts says that the "commitment, symbiosis and alliance" between Heritage and Washington policies in the 1980s was complete. Its founder, Joseph Coors, declared at the US Congress that he had bought a small cargo plane for the Cons with $ 65,000 out of pocket while officiating as a Reagan government adviser.  https://www.clarin.com/ world / team-shadows-donald-trump_0_Sk1OWKRUl.html  Congress Research Service, Draft Report (1987) 'Public Diplomacy' 'Project Democracy' and Contra Aid '". Goodtimesweb.org, Sensitive Diplomatic Relations, 1981-1988, pp. 58-59. Consortium for independent journalism . Otto Reich, who was a Senior Research Fellow of the Heritage while serving as Undersecretary of Hemispheric Affairs for the government of George W. Bush, was one of the US officials with the greatest involvement in the organization and deployment of the forces Counterinsurgents in Central America in the 1980s and was also present in the management of the overthrow of the Honduran president Manuel Zelaya in 2009. http://www.celag.org/la-pesada-herencia-de- la-oea-obscure-trajectory-and-malas-juntas / # _ ftn13  At the same time several characters of the foundation have had strong links with the CIA among them Bruce Klingner, former deputy director of the Division of the CIA for Korea and Principal Investigator for Northeast Asia at the Asian Foundation Center of the Heritage Foundation. https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2017/05/11/la-cia-crea-un -center-to-do-versus-the-threat-of-north-Korea /  The Heritage Foundation continued to be an influential voice in internal and external policy matters during the administration of the president George Bush. He was one of the main supporters of Operation Desert Storm against Iraq.  

After the 2016 elections, Heritage Council member Rebekah Mercer played an important role in the formation of the Donald Trump team.   In recent years it has been accused along with other think thanks to have received more than 7,000 million dollars in the last eight years to deny climate change, including in this group both the Heritage Foundation as well as organizations such as the Atlas Foundation for Economic Research and the John Locke Foundation. Denouncing that they obtain benefits and hire people to write books that assure that climate change is a myth.  https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/115281-conspiracion-cambios-climaticos-eeu-conservadores < / ref>

In 1980, the Heritage Foundation published the Guide for leadership, which included multiple proposals for conservative political management. The Guide constituted the book of head of the administration of Ronald Reagan. According to its critics, the Guide contained 1300 illegal proposals. According to the CELAG, organization connected to TeleSUR, The interests of the Heritage Foundation  have a deep roots in the darkest history of Latin America  http: //www.celag. org / la-heavy-heritage-of-the-oea-dark-trajectory-and-bad-together / 

For its foundation, according to certain critical sources, it also counted on the funds of the tycoon Joshep Coors, with 2.2 million dollars contributed by the ACIC, South Korean intelligence service to which the intellectual authorship of the coup of State of 1961 that installed the dictator Park Chung-hee, https://www.clarin.com/mundo/rifles-paz_0_B1xhUTHdf.html </ ref> whose first director was a former agent of the CIA. Information traffickers: The hidden history of the communication groups Pascual Serrano, ISBN: 9788496797505, page 286 </ ref>

During the government of Barack Obama, on May 10, 2013, one of its members, Jason Richwine, had to resign his post after the media intensively covered his doctoral thesis at Harvard of 2009 and for their comments in a 2008 forum of the American Enterprise Institute; Richwine argued that Hispanics and blacks are  intellectually inferior to whites and have problems assimilating due to a supposed genetic predisposition to a reduced IQ (IQ). </ ref> </ ref>

Thanks. --Agustin6 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Article name
Does anyone know if there's a particular reason why the title of this article is "The Heritage Foundation" rather than just "Heritage Foundation"? I think the latter would make more sense, along the lines of the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, etc. Marquardtika (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, it sounds better to drop the "The", but I don't know what the best practices are for determining this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it revolves around the literal names of the organizations. "The Heritage Foundation" is the name of the organization while "Cato Institute" is its formal name.  Think of it as the difference between the "University of Washington" and "The Ohio State University."  Squatch347 (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Koch Brothers & Climate Change Denial
Why does the article not mention the Koch Brothers and that this is one of the leading climate change denial think tanks? → http://safinacenter.org/videos/the-koch-brothers-their-amazing-climate-denial-machine/ → --87.170.195.11 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Description of Heritage as "Friendly"
As mentioned in my revert comment, there are a number of problems with this edit.

First, it is inserted between text and accompanying citation, making it less clear who is claiming what for the reader.

Second, the article does not make the claim that Heritage is "friendly to the Trump administration," an analyst does. If that analyst is notable, we should properly cite that rather than lumping into "someone says" language. I'm skeptical that will be the case that a sole analyst's (and not an analyst on a relevant category) opinion would warrant a lede change.

I did mention to see the talk page archive for a previous discussion, but was mistaken. Squatch347 (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The first problem is easily rectifiable. The second problem is incorrect. The Politico article literally calls The Heritage Foundation "a conservative think tank friendly to Trump". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair correction, it was an off hand comment in the article rather than by the analyst. Let me ask this.  What does it add to the article include a vague assertion of "friendly" to the section by a single source?  What does it add to include the vague text?  We can find a couple of sources pretty easily describing it as hostile to Trump (in the areas of religious liberty and firearms for example), neither description adds any real meat to the article.  Squatch347 (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what as well as a think tank friendly to Trump adds that's not already in the article. Maybe try different wording, something different from the reference, or maybe use another reference? --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ronz different wording or reference.--MaximusEditor (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits in climate change denial section
recently edited the page saying that they Removed inaccurate and seemingly inflammatory data for a more nuanced description of foundation policies. Some edits made an attempt to inappropriately label one side of a complex conversation. They changed the referenced statement The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on climate change to The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on climate change due to clearly incorrect assumptions and numbers in an attempt to base policy on accurate data, providing truly meaningful change. (emphasis added). This appears to be an attempt to present the Foundation's denial of climate change (which appears well referenced on the page) in a more 'positive' light - claiming (without any references) that the "scientific consensus on climate change" is "clearly incorrect". 's further addition of [The Foundation doesn't agree with] unqualified plans to force the use of "renewables" as suggested in the "green new deal." appears to be unsourced and doesn't seem very neutral, especially with the use of scarequotes around renewables and green new deal.

What I'm attempting to do in this talk page section is explain why I reverted this edit, and if disagrees with me, provide somewhere for them to explain why they think I'm wrong - and also somewhere for other editors to provide their opinions. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  16:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion. I was in the process of reviewing the edit when you removed it. I would have removed it for the same reasons. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Update Kay C James
Hes now the president of Heritage foundation and also was invited by President Trump to join an American revival commitee to help get America's economy back on track after the Covid-19 pandemic, in this Politico article it states that the "National Coronavirus Recovery Commission" is a sub-branch of The Heritage foundation, but trying to research it further I couldnt yield much more information. If this is the case I think this is noteworthy enough to add into the article. Can anybody weigh in on this?Eruditess (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Kay Coles James is a she and has been president of Heritage since late 2017. She is listed in the infobox, but there doesn't seem to be anything about her in the body. If you want to add something, go for it. Marquardtika (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes Kay is a she lol, I did a quick google and couldn't find any WP:RS articles that expounded on this. I will keep looking though, and if I find something will update. EliteArcher88 (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation database lists more than 1,300 voter frauds punished by the American justice system
How is it possible to write this :


 * "The Heritage Foundation has promoted false claims of voter fraud. Hans von Spakovsky who heads the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation has played an influential role in making alarmism about voter fraud mainstream in the Republican Party, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud." ???

The Heritage Foundation website offers an online database of more than 1,300 voter frauds that have been punished by the American justice system, since the 1990s. So, voter fraud is not a myth: in more than 1,300 cases, the American judges have prosecuted and sentenced people for voter fraud. Many of these 1,300 cases involve tens, hundreds, and in some cases thousands of illegal ballots. Many of these cases have led the judges to cancel the election and order a new one. I'm French, and in my country, there has only been TWO voter frauds for the last 15 years (2008, 2013), whereas in the States, with a population 6 times bigger, it's over 1,300 (and the Heritage Foundation database is not complete). In France, we don't have absentee voting, nor mail-in voting, nor early voting, nor ballot drop-boxes... because these ways of voting are terribly dangerous, and offer many opportunities to cheat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB14:8416:6D00:905:DEBC:FB76:DB90 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Trustee listing
Noting that the article has had a "Bored of Trustees" section for many years, I've restored the listing (and trimmed their descriptions). The section lists individuals of very high caliber of HF governance. It is not promotional. Eg, the information is WP:NOTEWORTHY. – S. Rich (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's useful to the reader to link to articles about trustees for whom Wikipedia has articles. It's also very standard to include trustees in articles about nonprofits. I don't see a promotional element here. Marquardtika (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Find an independent reference that demonstrates why it belongs. Otherwise it's pure WP:PROMO. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – Not sure what you mean by "independent reference ...". E.g., inclusion of the notable names is a question of WP editor effort, carried out in a collaborative effort. Presently I'm working on Mahatma Gandhi, doing gnomish improvements. And I note he is in the List of presidents of the Indian National Congress. Is it promotional to have such a listing for the Indian National Congress? I think not. Each person in that list is WP:NOTABLE and their tenure as a president is supported by RS. In this Heritage Foundation article we have an organization that is quite important in American politics. Giving readers more information about the organization is perfectly proper.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what is promotional about informing readers about the governing bodies of nonprofit organizations. It is basic, undisputed info and a perfectly fine use of WP:ABOUTSELF. It's also on par with other articles on nonprofits, like Center for Public Integrity, Council on Foreign Relations, Hoover Institution, Urban Institute, American Enterprise Institute, etc. This basic organizational information serves our readers. Marquardtika (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per NOT, the solution is to use independent sources.
 * Other stuff exists. If you want to point out GA articles where there has been discussion on such content, that certainly would help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A solution to the WP:NOTDIRECTORY concern—for all of these organization articles—is to limit the listings to individuals with WP articles. Each such listing is then titled "Notable persons". (We already see such listings in articles about schools and colleges".) Also, I suggest we dig around in the semi-active WP:ORGZ to see what they suggest. In the end we want to create articles that are informative, accurate, and useful to our readers. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That approach ignores the need for independent sources per NOT, as well as POV and BLP. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF is relevant here. Listing the members of a group's board of directors is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, and the group's own website is a perfectly acceptable source for this information. Lots of GA articles in WP:WPORG list boards of directors...Independent Women's Forum, College Republicans, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Operation USA, Parents Television Council, SRI International, etc. Come to think of it, the Wikimedia Foundation page lists the board of directors, too. It's basic, illuminating, and non-promotional information that readers deserve to know and there's no reason to exclude it. Marquardtika (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying some articles. Do any have discussions? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're curious you should take a look yourself. Marquardtika (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my experience, something like this doesn't get discussed or held to policy. See this discussion as an example. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that thousands of articles which list notable (and non-notable) people are improper. This means that every school with notable alumni and faculty, and every company or organization with notable staff need the sections removed. Is this what you want to do with Apple Inc.? Your initial edit to this article said the listing was promo. But that adjective can be applied to articles about K Street lobbies, any S&P 500 company, or any university that has a connection to a Nobel Prize winner. How? "Our lobby office is in the best part of town!" "Our company is Big!" and "We got smart people working here!" I'm sorry, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. – S. Rich (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Straw man --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding voter fraud
(Redacted --Hipal (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC))
 * Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality: I've not paid too much attention to articles related to this topic, and am rather surprised it doesn't have it's own article. Could you explain the quality of the references on the topic and any general consensus that you know? --Hipal (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The text in the article reflects what the cited sources say. It's entirely compliant with WP:NPOV. Some vague references to what Democrats said about Russian interference in the 2016 election has nothing to do with the content in question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the hope that it will help prevent or ease future disputes and discussions, I've restored portions of this discussion. --Hipal (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-Partisan?
Heritage is currently categorized under, while also being openly partisan and not claiming to be non-partisan. I think it should be removed from the category.

Keller Scholl (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've removed it. --Hipal (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Biden Administration Revert
Good afternoon Snooganssnoogans,

I'm a bit confused by your revert. For example, the article mentions that she stepped-down, not that she was fired. Did I miss some language where that was mentioned? Ditto on the firebrand language, which is referencing the new president, not the organization's position, that is Synth. So is referencing the anecdote. Nothing in the source makes a connection with that incident and her stepping-down, you are making that inference yourself. We don't add stuff based on the "essence" of an RS, but on the language used. There is no such language in the source making the implication that you are adding here. Squatch347 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The shift from a conservative who was willing to implement basic health precautions in the workplace during a pandemic to one who has railed against them is clearly pertinent, which is why the WaPo covers it in its story about the Heritage Foundation. Your edit made it appear as if there was a normal not-notable shift in leadership at the organization when the entire WaPo article is about how this signals a major shift in the org and lays out why this is a meaningful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all, my edit highlights that the shift signaled a dramatic change in tone and which issues Heritage chose to engage on. The issue with masks is covered two-thirds of the way down the article and isn't tied, at all, to any discussion of the leadership change, but only as an example of how she differs from her successor. Implying that the two are in anyway related is adding our inference to the article's text.  The article makes the change quite clearly as a result of decreasing fundraising and increasing criticism from right-wing figures over what she chose to engage and not engage on.  Adding this event makes it read now like she advocated for masks and that led to pressure that she step down, none of which is in the article.  Your edit doesn't reference the focus on CRT or lockdowns, which make up a majority of the issues cited in the source article.  Squatch347 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While I think the wording could be substantially improved, the reference clearly shows a change in focus and approach. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Stance on marriage equality
Moved from article for discussion: "In 2020, Ryan Anderson, a fellow from the Heritage Foundation, spoke concerning the adoption of polyamorous domestic partnerships by the city of Somerville, Massachusetts. He criticized recent definitions of marriage as having 'no principled stopping point', which made the domestic partnerships unsurprising. Earlier, in 2015, Anderson questioned the basis for which marriage equality could be denied to same-sex throuples, with marriage equality being assumed for same-sex couples. An executive for the Heritage Foundation co-signed a letter opposing the Act; the letter was addressed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConell and was also signed by the leaders of other socially conservative organizations and institutions."

This looks like WP:SOAP and a WP:POV violation, picking the foundation's pov from articles on larger issues. What we really need is a reference that analyzes the foundation's stance and rhetoric on marriage equality as a whole. Hipal (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A discussion about the addition of this content has been opened at WP:AN. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) Kbabej (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hipal, sorry that I did not see your comment earlier, had I seen it I would have respected the discussion process with you. I disagree that it was a Soapboxing, especially because the 2015 article especially focuses on the topic of the paragraph, so it shouldn't be considered cherry-picking. Please keep in mind that you inadvertently broke a section link elsewhere, and I was fixing it. For anyone & everyone, the link to discuss topic-banning me is Administrators%27 noticeboard; it concerns this and other articles related to the Respect for Marriage Act.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * the 2015 article especially focuses on the topic of the paragraph well that is completely false, as anyone who reads the article can see -- generously, one could say that this is discussed in 5 out of 60 paragraphs in the 2015 WaPo article. --JBL (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

excluding information on trustee J. Frederic "Fritz" Rench
What is the objection to including the brief (very brief) discussion of how Frederic Rench contributed to the idea of creating Heritage? It was sourced from a referenced book; and also Rench was a board director (trustee) for many years (making him notable already from my perspective). So what is the real objection here in excluding this brief material? Is there some not-so-obvious reason (for the exclusion) that can be explained? Thanks very much for any information on this. L.Smithfield (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources look poor, the content promotional and undue. --Hipal (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * On their face, the sources look fine (reliable). I do not see anything "promotional" in the disputed edit.  And rather than introducing undue importance, it rather appears that the contribution of Rench to the founding of Heritage was more important and consequential than the contributions of the other founders (aside from Weyrich himself)! L.Smithfield (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've asked twice to explain how the sources might be reliable. Are none forthcoming?
 * As far as I can tell, WP:BLP applies as well. Note it has especially high standards for sources and how they are used. --Hipal (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to a recent revelation from User:Godhramm I (personally) consider this matter to be in abeyance. Best regards. L.Smithfield (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would like to disclose that I am personnaly related to J.F.Rench, which I understand can affect the neutrality of my edit.
 * My intention is to recall in a simple way his contribution in the creation of The Heritage Foundation, since his name wasn't even mentionned on this article until recently for unknown reasons.
 * I would like permission to edit the following sentence in the section "Early Years":
 * "Coors was the primary funder of the Heritage Foundation in its early years."[8]
 * in order to change it into :
 * "Rench drafted the original prospectus, budget, and business plan in 1969. His plan enabled Heritage to attract corporate investors beginning with Coors, who became the primary funder of the Heritage Foundation in its early years."[8]
 * The source remains the same as the one already used (historian Lee Edwards' book The Power of Ideas), and I don't think this phrasing undermines Coors' involvement. It simply explains in what way Rench contributed in the first place. Godhramm (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Edwards and his book is not independent of the topic.
 * I've removed the previous addition of Rench, though minimal mention may be DUE. --Hipal (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As mentioned on my talk page, I'll leave it to other editors. I know the difficulties of finding sources written by authors who aren't conservatives about this matter.
 * Best Regards Godhramm (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to be fine for inclusion. Eruditess (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Activist?
While they certainly are activist, perhaps there's a better description. Would any of the following help? Hipal (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/13/heritage-foundation-voter-suppression-lobbying-election-action-plan
 * https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/devaluing-the-think-tank
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1983/10/03/building-a-heritage-in-the-war-of-ideas/94b4f088-c527-4629-89a6-b394ceb7c85c/
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324144304578619640562831244


 * Aren't all think tanks "activist"? Seems redundant to me. Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not all think tanks are activist. Part of Heritage's notability is that they were founded to be activist, something that was rare prior.
 * More refs we might use:
 * https://scholars.org/brief/think-tanks-and-rise-savvy-policy-entrepreneurs
 * Think Tanks in America. By Thomas Medvetz
 * --Hipal (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh, well if that's what the sources say I won't stand in the way. Don't have time to do the reading myself right now so I'll self-revert. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Part of Heritage's notability is that they were founded to be activist, something that was rare prior.

Their creation of Heritage Action should be emphasized more in this article. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)